Oh, you meant non-Apple hardware. Good luck with that unsupported mess. Just get Ubuntu for that pile of parts, I normally put the "snotty Mac owner" attitude down to trolls intentionally playing off the stereotype, but given your name, I assume you're for real.
you'll be far better off than trying to duct-tape a Mac OS X install onto a "beige" box. Obviously; that's because Apple intentionally made the Mac OS not run on such "beige" boxes. Not that the GP was being serious anyway.
Oh, and you can blame Apple for "beige" computers; they introduced that with the Apple II.:-)
France doesn't use SECAM for a long time now, so no worries about that. Besides all games are 'set' to either PAL or NTSC. This sort of thing is why talking about "PAL" etc. outside the context of analogue transmission can be misleading. (I'm generalising from here on, not lecturing or contradicting Movi- who seems to know more than me anyway).
Nothing wrong with using PAL and NTSC *informally* to mean any 50Hz/625-line and 60Hz/525-line video... so long as you realise that it's not strictly correct and that many issues with actual PAL/NTSC/SECAM simply don't apply to digitally-encoded component video and the like.
Most people playing computer games in Europe use RGB video (and discrete audio) connections via SCART. So AFAIK the only thing to worry about is whether your TV can handle the refresh rate and line resolution. Since PAL and SECAM are the same in this respect, I'd assume that there was no problem here, and that there would be no reason to have separate PAL and SECAM computer games.
and if youre talking about variants, then only care if you get a Japan game - they have a modified NTSC there called NTSC-J According to its Wikipedia article, the only difference with NTSC-J are in the black levels, and (at most) you might need to adjust the brightness and contrast.
But as I said, this should only apply to *actual* (analogue) NTSC-encoded video (or if you are mixing and matching analogue video equipment). Video game footage is digital and uses totally different colour encoding to true PAL/NTSC.
The PAL variants vary only in sound encoding and this ONLY affects transmitted material- and only with actual analogue PAL. Okay; my mistake, that's not strictly true (see, I warned you I wasn't an expert). Some variants of PAL also place the colour subcarrier at a different frequency (*).
PAL-N (Paraguy/Uruguay) has the "standard" 50Hz/625-line spec, but has the colour subcarrier at 3.58 MHz- like NTSC- instead of 4.43 MHz.
PAL-M (Brazil) uses PAL colour-encoding, but with NTSC's 60Hz/525 line spec *and* the colour subcarrier at (again) 3.58Mhz instead of 4.43MHz. In other words, same as NTSC video, but with PAL colour encoding.
I can sort of understand the Brazilian PAL-M; it avoids resolution/frame-rate conversion issues with North American-sourced material, but avoids the colour transmission problems associated with NTSC. Not so sure about PAL-N though; I guess it was for bandwidth reasons.
(*) Pedantically speaking, I don't think the PAL spec even defines the subcarrier frequency, only the colour encoding method. Leading to the strange situation where (e.g.) digitally-encoded video at 50Hz/625 lines is colloquially referred to as "PAL", even though it doesn't actually have PAL-encoded colour.
Actually, it affects everything. PAL games run slower because the refresh rate controls the speed of everything else in the game. Reread what I said. We were talking about a French edition of a game ("SECAM" country) played on a British system ("PAL" country). Since SECAM and PAL have the same refresh/resolution, what you describe should not be an issue.
Isn't France on SECAM? And beware, there are different variants of PAL too. Short answer; the PAL variants shouldn't be an issue here, AFAIK. In fact, SECAM shouldn't either. Region coding, more of an issue, probably.
Long answer (disclaimer, I am *not* an expert). The PAL variants vary only in sound encoding and this ONLY affects transmitted material- and only with actual analogue PAL.
This is a situation where using "PAL"/"NTSC" as synonyms for 50Hz/625-line, and 60Hz/525-line displays is misleading. Digitally-transmitted and recorded material is not in PAL or NTSC, or SECAM format. (In fact, strictly-speaking, PAL only refers to the colour encoding, not the frame rate or resolution!!)
Yes, the refresh/resolution specs of our digital systems normally reflect the old analogue systems for compatibility, but they're not "PAL" or "NTSC". Remember that games, etc do not use analogue PAL/SECAM video.
Since (AFAIK) PAL and SECAM countries mostly use the same frame/refresh rates, that should be all that matters when it comes to playing back digitally-recorded and generated material. At worst, the system you are playing the game on should be compatible with your TV system (for composite video???) but this will usually be the case anyway. At best, people will be connecting via RGB SCART, so only the refresh/resolution is an issue, and that's the same in both cases.
As I said above, regional lockouts and so on would be more of an issue.
Anyone reading your reply would guess that I had said/implied a lot of things I hadn't.
Even if she only has thirty minutes to watch TV each day, she should be able to watch what she wants in the quality she was expecting. This sounds reasonable, but on closer analysis is badly written and/or has no relevance to what I said.
If you're implying that she can do what she likes with her own money, I already said that.
If you're implying that she has the right to watch hi-def TV *if* that was in the contract with Comcast, fine. I didn't say that she didn't.
If you're implying that she has an inherent right to those channels, no she doesn't.
Also, does being a professional mean that she should have to work more than forty hours a week? I know most of us do (myself included), but I really don't think it's fair that we're forced to do so. Again, I only attempted to guess the amount of free time she might have for watching TV. You yourself admit that most professionals *do* work more than forty hours, and that's all that can be applied to the point you were replying to.
Whether a professional should be expected to work those hours is a different argument altogether, and one which I didn't judge- or even raise- either way.
Assuming eight hours of sleep, one hour for commute time and two hours for getting ready, breakfast and dinner, I see five hours left to watch TV (if she has no children). Now while I feel that watching five hours of TV a day is just crazy, if that's her version of entertainment, she should get what she paid for. Agreed? She can do what the heck she likes; if you go back and re-read what I said, you'll see that I was just guesstimating the amount of time she was likely to spend in front of the thing.
As I said, it's her money and she can do what she likes with it. No-one suggested that she shouldn't get what she paid for.
It's also her time, and again, I didn't suggest how she *should* spend it, I guessed how much time it was *likely* that she was spending watching TV.
If she wants to spend a solid 5 hours a day doing that, that's fine, but it's not too likely.
Given that, my point was whether it was worth the money/hassle for a (probably) small amount of TV watching. You seemed to want to turn it into something else.
I just pooped my cute little pants. It's odd; PurifyYourMind is a relatively established account that has gone from being a normal poster to concentrating on blatant repetition trolls.
It's possible that they're experimenting with a new alternative fuel source; burning karma.
These "perks and everything you need provided" companies have a flip-side. FWIW, I'm certainly not against this in itself; if the company lets you get on with your job by making your life easier elsewhere and environment more pleasant, well... everyone wins.
Up to a point, though, and just so long as you remember that the company gains from this too. If the all-pervasive culture is 60+ hour weeks with little outside life... Well, it's nice and all that, but when it comes down to it you're still dedicating your life to the company.
So far, I've spent about 4 months in the industry and I've loved it. That's nice, but 4 months in *any* industry is nothing, and doesn't necessarily reflect how you'll feel in five years time. Maybe the novelty of that particular company hasn't worn off yet. Maybe you're still quite young and still happy for your job to be your life. Maybe you haven't been disillusioned by politics or false promises.
No offense, and I'm glad you like your job, but your advice isn't really helpful beyond letting us know what it's like to work at your job for four months. While I wouldn't base the start of my career solely on what it (and I) will be like in 28 years time, I'll place far more value in the OP's experience than your barely-off-the-starting-blocks opinion.
To be fair, about a third of that was for Internet access, but that's still shocking; even more gobsmacking is how much they were expecting her to pay on top of that.
Yeah, I know it's easy to be snotty about TV and all that, but she's a professional (I assume); how much time does she have to actually watch the bloody thing anyway?! I know it's nice to sit on your arse after a hard day and watch your favourite show, but when you consider the horrendous amount of crap and being f***** about she's putting up with on top of the money... Eh, well, she's not me and I'm sure she can judge what and what isn't worth her time and money.
Marvel has even commented in recent months about happily bringing their licenses home, which would now make an Avengers movie more plausible. No relation to the Avengers movie, we can safely assume...
Think how bad the CGI looked in that Hulk movie.:-) *Why* did the CGI in the Hulk movie look so bad though? I appreciate that CGI still isn't at the stage where it can replicate anything in real-life 100% convincingly- assuming of course, that the thing you are "animating" has "real" existence, which Hulk didn't. And that last point might explain some of it- they were trying to fit a creature with cartoon characteristics into "real life" live animation.
But it still doesn't explain why the Hulk's appearance was *so* bad and *totally* unconvincing.
The Roger Corman version of Fantastic Four? Oh, there's apparently a very interesting story behind that film. To quote its Wikipedia entry:-
The Fantastic Four is an unreleased low-budget feature film completed in 1994. Created to secure copyright to the property, the producers never intended it for release -- although the director and other creators were not informed of this fact. There's another article about it here, alongside the usual discussion at IMDB (note that you need to register to view the forums).
That really sucks - moisture is a real danger when trying to preserve anything. Wasn't the time capsule buried in the Blue Peter gardens or something similar? I've no idea; I think I was watching the programme regularly by 1984, but I don't recall that particular burial.
You may have answered your own questions there. You're the third person to have made that observation, apparently oblivious to the fact that I'd already given a response to it.
But, we [Americans] have no religion to grasp onto Uh... Christianity?
I mean, my top friends on my myspace friends list is a bottle of Smirnoff ice and a box of tampons. I'm afraid to tell you that I drank the bottle of Smirnoff Ice. And that you clearly have no life (a box of tampons... WTF?!)
Oh and before anyone makes some comment about killing for religion how many people got shot or hurt trying to get a PS3? Not that I'm trying to defend the ludicrous console fanboys... but all the same, I doubt that most of the people doing the hurting and shooting were any more than touts hoping to sell the PS3s at a profit, or at worst criminals hoping to steal them for the same reason (or possibly to play them, stranger things have happened).
Are you seriously trying to turn Apple's pushy attempt to nag the user into installing (totally unnecessary) software into a justification of why the Mac is better than Windows?!
I'm no major fan of MS or Windows, but regardless of whether Apple do stuff like this on the Mac (the context there is different because they "own" the OS), *they* are the ones doing it on Windows here and the suggestion that we should use *their* OS to avoid this sort of thing is laughable.
Just get a Q-Tip. We don't need you to make up some disorder because you're too lazy to clean your ears. I bet you have ass problems from the lack of wiping. Yes, but that's not as serious a problem for him as it would be for you, as he doesn't actually talk out of his ass.
deaf people suck anyway... you guys can't even hear You know, the coolest thing about that is that we can talk about them behind their backs and they can't even hear us. Just like we're doing just now! Ner-ner ner-ner-ner! You can't hear us!
Although Steve didn't say it, I'm pretty sure the primary motivations for porting Safari to Windows were to allow Windows web app developers to test for Safari compatibility and iPhone compatibility. Elsewhere in this thread it's stated that the underpinnings of the Windows and Mac versions are different; if so, your suggestion is incorrect.
it's BLUE PETER, a children's programme! For small kids! Blue Peter is aimed at older children; I'd say 8 to 14, not "small" kids. And it depends who you consider it's being buried for anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and you can blame Apple for "beige" computers; they introduced that with the Apple II.
Nothing wrong with using PAL and NTSC *informally* to mean any 50Hz/625-line and 60Hz/525-line video... so long as you realise that it's not strictly correct and that many issues with actual PAL/NTSC/SECAM simply don't apply to digitally-encoded component video and the like.
Most people playing computer games in Europe use RGB video (and discrete audio) connections via SCART. So AFAIK the only thing to worry about is whether your TV can handle the refresh rate and line resolution. Since PAL and SECAM are the same in this respect, I'd assume that there was no problem here, and that there would be no reason to have separate PAL and SECAM computer games.
and if youre talking about variants, then only care if you get a Japan game - they have a modified NTSC there called NTSC-J According to its Wikipedia article, the only difference with NTSC-J are in the black levels, and (at most) you might need to adjust the brightness and contrast.
But as I said, this should only apply to *actual* (analogue) NTSC-encoded video (or if you are mixing and matching analogue video equipment). Video game footage is digital and uses totally different colour encoding to true PAL/NTSC.
PAL-N (Paraguy/Uruguay) has the "standard" 50Hz/625-line spec, but has the colour subcarrier at 3.58 MHz- like NTSC- instead of 4.43 MHz.
PAL-M (Brazil) uses PAL colour-encoding, but with NTSC's 60Hz/525 line spec *and* the colour subcarrier at (again) 3.58Mhz instead of 4.43MHz. In other words, same as NTSC video, but with PAL colour encoding.
I can sort of understand the Brazilian PAL-M; it avoids resolution/frame-rate conversion issues with North American-sourced material, but avoids the colour transmission problems associated with NTSC. Not so sure about PAL-N though; I guess it was for bandwidth reasons.
(*) Pedantically speaking, I don't think the PAL spec even defines the subcarrier frequency, only the colour encoding method. Leading to the strange situation where (e.g.) digitally-encoded video at 50Hz/625 lines is colloquially referred to as "PAL", even though it doesn't actually have PAL-encoded colour.
Long answer (disclaimer, I am *not* an expert). The PAL variants vary only in sound encoding and this ONLY affects transmitted material- and only with actual analogue PAL.
This is a situation where using "PAL"/"NTSC" as synonyms for 50Hz/625-line, and 60Hz/525-line displays is misleading. Digitally-transmitted and recorded material is not in PAL or NTSC, or SECAM format. (In fact, strictly-speaking, PAL only refers to the colour encoding, not the frame rate or resolution!!)
Yes, the refresh/resolution specs of our digital systems normally reflect the old analogue systems for compatibility, but they're not "PAL" or "NTSC". Remember that games, etc do not use analogue PAL/SECAM video.
Since (AFAIK) PAL and SECAM countries mostly use the same frame/refresh rates, that should be all that matters when it comes to playing back digitally-recorded and generated material. At worst, the system you are playing the game on should be compatible with your TV system (for composite video???) but this will usually be the case anyway. At best, people will be connecting via RGB SCART, so only the refresh/resolution is an issue, and that's the same in both cases.
As I said above, regional lockouts and so on would be more of an issue.
If you're implying that she can do what she likes with her own money, I already said that.
If you're implying that she has the right to watch hi-def TV *if* that was in the contract with Comcast, fine. I didn't say that she didn't.
If you're implying that she has an inherent right to those channels, no she doesn't. Also, does being a professional mean that she should have to work more than forty hours a week? I know most of us do (myself included), but I really don't think it's fair that we're forced to do so. Again, I only attempted to guess the amount of free time she might have for watching TV. You yourself admit that most professionals *do* work more than forty hours, and that's all that can be applied to the point you were replying to.
Whether a professional should be expected to work those hours is a different argument altogether, and one which I didn't judge- or even raise- either way. Assuming eight hours of sleep, one hour for commute time and two hours for getting ready, breakfast and dinner, I see five hours left to watch TV (if she has no children). Now while I feel that watching five hours of TV a day is just crazy, if that's her version of entertainment, she should get what she paid for. Agreed? She can do what the heck she likes; if you go back and re-read what I said, you'll see that I was just guesstimating the amount of time she was likely to spend in front of the thing.
As I said, it's her money and she can do what she likes with it. No-one suggested that she shouldn't get what she paid for.
It's also her time, and again, I didn't suggest how she *should* spend it, I guessed how much time it was *likely* that she was spending watching TV.
If she wants to spend a solid 5 hours a day doing that, that's fine, but it's not too likely.
Given that, my point was whether it was worth the money/hassle for a (probably) small amount of TV watching. You seemed to want to turn it into something else.
It's possible that they're experimenting with a new alternative fuel source; burning karma.
I agree; from what I've heard, aspects of the Google culture are bordering on cult-like.
These "perks and everything you need provided" companies have a flip-side. FWIW, I'm certainly not against this in itself; if the company lets you get on with your job by making your life easier elsewhere and environment more pleasant, well... everyone wins.
Up to a point, though, and just so long as you remember that the company gains from this too. If the all-pervasive culture is 60+ hour weeks with little outside life... Well, it's nice and all that, but when it comes down to it you're still dedicating your life to the company.
No offense, and I'm glad you like your job, but your advice isn't really helpful beyond letting us know what it's like to work at your job for four months. While I wouldn't base the start of my career solely on what it (and I) will be like in 28 years time, I'll place far more value in the OP's experience than your barely-off-the-starting-blocks opinion.
To be fair, about a third of that was for Internet access, but that's still shocking; even more gobsmacking is how much they were expecting her to pay on top of that.
Yeah, I know it's easy to be snotty about TV and all that, but she's a professional (I assume); how much time does she have to actually watch the bloody thing anyway?! I know it's nice to sit on your arse after a hard day and watch your favourite show, but when you consider the horrendous amount of crap and being f***** about she's putting up with on top of the money... Eh, well, she's not me and I'm sure she can judge what and what isn't worth her time and money.
But it still doesn't explain why the Hulk's appearance was *so* bad and *totally* unconvincing.
Point already made by someone else and replied to.
Are you seriously trying to turn Apple's pushy attempt to nag the user into installing (totally unnecessary) software into a justification of why the Mac is better than Windows?!
I'm no major fan of MS or Windows, but regardless of whether Apple do stuff like this on the Mac (the context there is different because they "own" the OS), *they* are the ones doing it on Windows here and the suggestion that we should use *their* OS to avoid this sort of thing is laughable.
Oh, hang on...